DCT

2:25-cv-00606

Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00606, E.D. Tex., 06/06/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including a large campus in Richardson, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SD-WAN networking equipment and Cisco Webex collaboration platform infringe three patents related to improving the reliability of real-time data transmission and creating self-forming Voice over IP (VoIP) networks.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for ensuring data integrity and connection continuity in computer networks, which are critical for latency-sensitive applications like video streaming and VoIP calls.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in 2009, Plaintiff disclosed its technology and then-pending patent applications to senior decision-makers at Cisco during partnership discussions. Plaintiff also alleges it sent a notice letter identifying the patents-in-suit and the accused infringement to Cisco's CEO on June 22, 2022, to which it received no response.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-11-04 Priority Date for ’762 Patent
2007-03-15 Cisco acquires WebEx Communications, Inc.
2008-11-24 Priority Date for ’852 and ’000 Patents
2009-01-01 Plaintiff and Defendant hold pre-suit partnership discussions
2013-07-02 ’762 Patent Issued
2013-08-20 ’852 Patent Issued
2015-06-02 ’000 Patent Issued
2022-06-22 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant's CEO
2025-06-06 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,514,852 - "Real time package transforms to avoid re-transmission" (Issued Aug. 20, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In standard network protocols, if a transmitted data packet is corrupted, the entire packet must be re-sent. This process introduces delays (latency) and reduces network throughput, which is particularly detrimental for real-time applications like video streams that cannot tolerate significant interruptions (’852 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes modifying the data packet to include redundant "repair information" for critical parts of the packet, such as the header. The modified packet header also contains a "position offset reference number" that points to the location of this redundant information. This allows an intermediate network device (a "relay station") that detects an error to use the redundant data to reconstruct the corrupted portion of the packet and send it on, avoiding a time-consuming re-transmission request back to the original source (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 32; ’852 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:39-50).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve the performance and reliability of transmitting real-time data over potentially noisy or lossy networks, such as multi-hop wireless mesh networks (Compl. ¶30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Claim 1 (Method) Essential Elements:
    • Modifying a standard format network packet by adding redundant information.
    • Modifying at least one packet header to add a position offset reference number pointing to the redundant information.
    • Revising all checksums to agree with the modified packet.
    • Transmitting the packet through a network.
    • If the received packet has a checksum mismatch, modifying it by retrieving the redundant information (using the offset reference) and replacing a portion of the packet.
    • Revising all checksums again after the repair.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but does seek relief for infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 9,049,000 - "Real-time packet transforms to avoid re-transmissions" (Issued June 2, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’852 Patent, this invention addresses the inefficiency and latency caused by the need to re-transmit entire data packets when errors occur, especially in real-time data feeds (’000 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a packet is transmitted with embedded redundant information and pointers. During transmission, intermediate network nodes can check for errors. If an error is found, the node can use the embedded redundant data to repair the packet and recalculate checksums before forwarding it, thereby preventing a re-transmission request (’000 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:50-col. 6:2).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this patent, like the '852 Patent, provides specific technical advancements for transmitting real-time streams with enhanced reliability and efficiency (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Claim 1 (Method) Essential Elements:
    • Modifying a packet by adding redundant information.
    • Modifying a packet header to add a position offset reference number pointing to the redundant information.
    • Revising all checksums to agree with the modified packet.
    • Transmitting the packet, which includes the step of checking it during transmission.
    • If a checksum mismatch is found, modifying the packet by retrieving the redundant information and replacing a portion of the packet.
    • Calculating new checksums and revising all checksums in the modified packet.
  • The complaint seeks relief for infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 8,477,762 - "Self-forming VoIP Network" (Issued July 2, 2013)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of maintaining VoIP calls when network nodes lose connection to a required central Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) server. The described solution enables a "cluster" of isolated network nodes to independently construct and maintain a "local SIP registry" by exchanging information with each other, allowing VoIP communications to be established and continued without a central server (Compl. ¶¶ 37-39; '762 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Cisco Webex products of infringement, alleging they use distributed SIP functionality to enable continuity of voice and video communications when network connections are unexpectedly terminated (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 37-38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • ’852/’000 Accused Products: Cisco SD-WAN with FEC
    • The complaint identifies "Cisco SD-WAN solutions and equipment with Forward Error Correction ('FEC')" as the instrumentality infringing the ’852 and ’000 patents (Compl. ¶13).
    • Functionally, these products are alleged to improve the efficiency of transporting real-time streams over a network. The complaint alleges that the FEC feature, specifically, reduces re-transmission delays by sending packets with sufficient "repair/recovery information" to allow receiving devices to fix transmission errors without requesting a full re-transmission (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 30).
  • ’762 Accused Products: Cisco Webex
    • The complaint identifies "Cisco Webex" as the instrumentality infringing the ’762 Patent (Compl. ¶13).
    • This is a VoIP collaboration platform. The complaint alleges that it is "enabled with distributed Session Initiation Protocol ('SIP') functionality" that allows it to maintain voice and video communication links even when a connection to a central server is lost or not yet established (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38). The complaint points to Cisco's technical documentation for features like "Enhanced-Survivability" as evidence of this functionality (Compl. p. 19, fn. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that infringement claim charts for the ’852, ’000, and ’762 patents are attached as Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, respectively. As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, the following is a narrative summary of the infringement theories based on the text of the complaint.

  • '852 and '000 Patent Infringement Allegations
    • The complaint alleges that Cisco's SD-WAN products with FEC directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’852 and ’000 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 65). The core of the allegation is that the FEC functionality in these products performs the patented method of modifying data packets to include redundant error-correction information. This allegedly allows the products to repair corrupted packets at relay or destination nodes, avoiding the need for re-transmission, thereby mapping to the steps recited in the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 30-32).
  • '762 Patent Infringement Allegations
    • The complaint alleges that Cisco Webex products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’762 patent (Compl. ¶80). The theory is that Webex's architecture, particularly its survivability features, implements the patented method for a self-forming VoIP network. The complaint alleges that when a connection to a central server is unavailable, Webex nodes can form a cluster, build a local SIP registry by exchanging information, and use that local registry to establish and maintain VoIP calls, thereby practicing the claimed invention (Compl. ¶¶ 37-39).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question (’852/’000 Patents): The term "Forward Error Correction" encompasses a wide variety of techniques. A central question will be whether the specific algorithm used in Cisco's SD-WAN products meets the detailed limitations of claim 1, such as the use of a "position offset reference number" that points to redundant data, or if it uses a different, non-infringing error-correction method.
    • Scope Question (’762 Patent): The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of "local SIP registry built by exchanging SIP information." The court may need to determine if the functionality in Cisco Webex, such as its "Enhanced-Survivability" mode, constitutes the dynamic, peer-to-peer registry creation described in the patent, or if it is a different mechanism, such as a failover to a pre-configured local gateway, that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’852/’000 Patents: "position offset reference number"
    • Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 of both the ’852 and ’000 patents and describes a key component of the patented solution. The infringement case against the SD-WAN products may depend on whether their FEC implementation can be shown to use a data structure that functions as this specific type of pointer.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee may argue that the term should be given a broad, functional definition to cover any data field that indicates the location of redundant information within the packet, as a specific structural definition is not explicitly provided in the claims themselves.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes how a "DLEN (the Data Length value)...is utilized as a position offset reference number that points to the duplicate data location" (’852 Patent, col. 5:39-43). A defendant could argue this ties the term to a specific embodiment involving a data length value used as an offset, rather than any generic pointer.
  • Term from ’762 Patent: "local SIP registry built by exchanging SIP information with the remaining VoIP nodes"
    • Context and Importance: This phrase from claim 1 of the ’762 patent is central to defining the invention. It distinguishes the claimed system from a simple backup or failover server. The case may hinge on whether Webex's survivability features involve this specific dynamic and distributed process.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any system where nodes in a cluster share client presence or address information to maintain local call capability meets the "exchanging SIP information" limitation, even if it is not a formal, continuous broadcast and compilation process.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes how each network node "independently constructs a local SIP registry" ('762 Patent, Abstract). The specification further states that "each builds a local SIP registry with current information" ('762 Patent, col. 4:67-col. 5:1). A defendant may argue this language requires an active, continuous, peer-to-peer building process, not merely a pre-configured or hierarchical fallback system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Cisco induces infringement of all three patents by providing customers with products and instructing them on how to use the infringing features. Evidence cited includes user guides, technical documentation, advertisements, blog posts, and support services for both the SD-WAN FEC features and the Webex survivability features (Compl. ¶¶ 51-53, 67-68, 81-83).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on partnership discussions "in or around 2009" where Plaintiff purportedly disclosed its technology and pending applications to Cisco, and a formal notice letter sent to Cisco's CEO on June 22, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 44, 62, 77, 92). Continued infringement after the complaint's filing is also alleged as a basis for willfulness.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This dispute presents several technical and legal questions for the court to resolve. The outcome may turn on the following central issues:

  1. A question of definitional scope: Can the term "local SIP registry built by exchanging SIP information," as detailed in the ’762 patent, be construed to read on the architecture of a commercial enterprise system like Cisco Webex, or is the patent’s scope limited to the specific ad-hoc, self-forming network embodiments described in the specification?
  2. A question of technical mapping: Does the Forward Error Correction (FEC) technology in Cisco's SD-WAN products operate using the specific method claimed in the ’852 and ’000 patents, including the use of a "position offset reference number" to repair packets, or does it employ a functionally distinct and non-infringing algorithm?
  3. A question of knowledge and intent: The allegations of 2009 technology disclosures and a 2022 notice letter raise a significant factual dispute regarding the timing and extent of Cisco's knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The resolution of this issue will be critical to the claims for both induced and willful infringement.